Status of Women Committee on Nov. 21st, 2007

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Chair, we can respond to the concerns of Ms. Davidson, Ms. Boucher and Ms. Minna at the same time. Earlier we said that we wanted to see what is currently going on with someone from Treasury Board, and what is being done to raise awareness regarding gender budgeting. Afterward, let us go to see what is happening in Manitoba and what they are doing there. When we adopt this tool, we will also see what is happening with budgeting for first nations people. The programs that are available to both men and women of the first nations are a part of the budgeting for the first nations. It was one of the programs that the first nations used to challenge certain events, results or decisions. I think that we could do this in the same study, and reserve a special space for the first nations. We will see what happens if this domain is no longer funded and what happens if it continues to be funded. I think that we can do all that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

Mr. Stanton, and then Madame Boucher.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

In terms of looking at some of the other things that we did talk about, we have essentially six meetings coming up next week. One of those is going be, as discussed already, for the Monday, the half-hour, continuing the work plan and the presentation by Status of Women Canada. We also have the supplementary estimates that need to go in. We also discussed the reports.

On this issue around the court challenges program, we're all aware that this has been a matter of some political debate. I honestly believe we should get on with things that are going to be constructive. I understand the opposition's interest in bringing that sort of an issue in front of us. I think we're all aware of the controversy that the decisions taken have created. But in all honesty, we have some pressing business in front of us here.

I agree with Madame Demers' suggestion that some of those will be overlaid with the speakers we're going to have in the course of our study on gender budgeting. But we have the estimates, we have the review of the reports from the last session, we have gender budgeting in front of us, which will probably take us well into the new year, and I would suggest, for what it's worth, that we continue with that.

In our work plan discussions, I note, for example, we have other motions here from Madame Mathyssen and Madame Demers, and the government has put some in play, and then we also have this rather comprehensive document that we can work from in looking at other materials.

That's my opinion. I recognize that other members may have a different view of that, but I certainly am not supportive of putting a review of the court challenges program into our agenda.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

I think Madame Demers had asked that it be done simultaneously, and I'm hearing from Mr. Stanton that he has asked for multiple ways of doing the gender-based analysis.

All I was suggesting is that when we look at the work plan, if we feel there is room to put in something else, that we do. We have the supplementary estimates. We have sent an invitation to all ministers regarding the response to our report. We haven't received any responses yet, so there will be some fill-in time. For that filler time I am seeking the committee's direction as to what you would like to do. We cannot cancel meetings. We need to be proactive and put something in place. The one suggestion, which Ms. Minna has made, is the court challenges program. It doesn't have to be political; it is a study that can take place. But I am at the will of the committee.

Yes, Ms. Minna, and then Madame Demers and Madame Mathyssen.

Ms. Boucher will have the floor after that.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The reason I was suggesting this--and I actually thought of it as we were sitting and talking--is that the court challenges program is another one that also affects women in a direct way. I know there have been major court challenges that have dealt with the rape shield and other things. I'm not trying to look at cancellations or not. It's important with respect to the impact, and it's a contained enough study. It's a small program; it's not a major program. I think it's only worth a couple million dollars in the sense of the amount of money in the budget. As I say, it's not a major program. It's not huge, and it could be handled in maybe a couple of meetings. But it also to some degree would have relevance to the gender-based analysis we're doing in terms of the legal aspect of the work, because we're talking about women and the legal system. So actually it's an extension of that to some degree. It complements the other side. It's not a new study on the side; it complements. It's not something different. If I had come to you with something that was totally out of the ballpark, then you could say that we had better start from scratch and figure it out, but this actually complements what we're doing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Madame Demers, and then Ms. Mathyssen.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Stanton, I am very sorry, but we are dealing with politics. This is not Sunday school. We must absolutely get to the bottom of some issues, and I think that this is one of them.

I tabled more petitions in the House today. Up to now, 5,425 women have signed and petitions to reinstate the program are still circulating all over Quebec and Canada.

I did not know that Ms. Minna wanted to discuss this, but I think that it is a very good idea if we can do it in a non-partisan way. It really is a political issue, but we can discuss what a suppression of the program means to women. Which groups does it affect the most, how does it affect them? Perhaps we can reach a conclusion together. Perhaps we will suggest to the minister that he should review the file because we think that those people are right. On the other hand, we might say that it is not really worth the effort. We too, may well conclude that it is not worth the effort. However, I do not think that we should throw in the towel too early. We should not refrain from reviewing a program because we are afraid of political issues. That is what we are here for.

I do not want to hate you. You are my adversary, but you are not my enemy. Nevertheless, sooner or later, we must get down to debating real issues.

That's it; that's all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you, Madam.

Ms. Mathyssen.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to support Ms. Minna and Madame Demers, because I think the issue of court challenges does indeed fit in with gender budgeting. We've had a year and a bit to find out the ramifications of the cancellation, and I would like to know that. Plus, I think that the objectives of any budget are to serve the people of the country. That's the whole idea of gender budgeting, to serve the people who contribute to this country. So I think it all fits, and I would be very happy to see that as part of it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Madame Boucher.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Let me say, in answer to Ms. Demers, that we really are involve in politics; I understand that very well. However, we must also be reasonable. This has been debated in every committee for a year. I took part in several committees and every committee discussed this. Therefore, the issue has been studied by all the committees.

I am working toward finding solutions. Therefore, I do not want to study an issue that has been debated for a year and a half. Actually, if you want a report, every committee has one. For instance, the Standing Committee on Official Languages has one, as does the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and other committees as well. We see them everywhere.

I was a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. We travelled all over Canada last year and we heard about it. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage also dealt with the issue. There are complete files about the issue.

Therefore, I suggest that we study something else that could help women, because this issue has already been studied by other committees.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Madame Boucher, are you telling me that this study has been done and you have a report somewhere?

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

This issue was discussed by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, by the Standing Committee on Official Languages and by another committee the name of which I forget.

The court challenges program, on l'a fait, the standing committees on official languages and justice and human rights.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

So all of the committees mentioned in here have done a study?

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

We already have written reports on this. So why should we waste valuable time by writing more of them? Three committees have made public reports about it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Has the government responded to it?

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I cannot answer you because I am not a minister, but I know that they are studying it, and so on. Sooner or later, we will surely get some answers. We already have written documents about this issue. Therefore, we could go on to something else.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Yes.

Ms. Neville first, then Mr. Stanton.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I'm going to pass, Madam Chair, as Madame Boucher made the point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Okay, that's fair.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I was not aware that the court challenges program has been before three committees, but I think it's of particular interest to this committee, Madam Chair, because of the impact of its cancellation on women.

I can give you one particular situation I'm familiar with. It's called the Sharon McIvor case out of British Columbia. It's a case involving aboriginal women who lost their status because of legislation implemented by the government in 1986, called Bill C-31, which had unintended consequences for aboriginal women and diminished their status as they had progressive generations.

What happened in that case is that Sharon McIvor challenged the government—as it had a direct impact on children—through the court challenges program, and was successful. She was successful in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

What's happened now is that the Government of Canada is challenging her in the Supreme Court of Canada, and she now doesn't have the resources of the court challenges program to fight her case in the Supreme Court. That's one concrete example I'm aware of that has a very significant impact on the lives of aboriginal women.

There may be more, and I think it's important that we be able to review it, and speak to it and recommend on it. Whether we are successful or not, I think it's important that it be part of the public record.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

Ms. Minna, and Madame Thaï Thi Lac.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I'll be very quick.

The only reason I raised it, again, is that it does have an impact on women. I think its impact is disproportionate between men in general, aboriginal women and women in general. There's violence against women in many areas. And it does tie in with our study on gender budgeting, because we're going to be looking at one of the examples of the legal system, which is really part of that. So that's why I thought of it. The legal system is broad, but this is a small, specific program that we might want to take a look at in terms of its impacts. That was my thinking.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Madame Thaï Thi Lac.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Good afternoon.

First, I would like to see the reports that have been prepared. Today, I am being asked to go on to something else, but I have not seen the reports. I would like to read them before I say anything.

Moreover, I think that even if this was debated in other committees, we must not forget that our approach will be much different from that of any other committee. Therefore I think that we could raise even more arguments. If we can help to reinstate the program, I would not like to miss the opportunity of bringing up more arguments to show how essential it is, even if other committees have already dealt with the issue.